California laws on teacher tenure, layoffs and dismissal are struck down

LOS ANGELES &GT;&GT; In a landmark decision with national ramifications, a Los Angeles judge ruled Tuesday that California laws governing teacher tenure, firing and layoffs violate students' constitutional right to education equality — a stunning victory for the Silicon Valley nonprofit that brought the lawsuit on behalf of nine students, including three from the Bay Area.

The long-awaited ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu found that the evidence of how poor teachers affect students "shocks the conscience" and that "there is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms." He noted that the current laws protect bad teachers and harm students and disproportionately affect poor and minority pupils.

Treu ordered the state to stop enforcing tenure, dismissal and layoff laws, but stayed his orders pending possible appeals by the state and California's two major teachers unions. The decision was a huge defeat for the powerful teachers union and sent a clear signal to legislators to begin rewriting those laws to make it easier to fire poorly performing teachers, to delay or change tenure rules, and to rework layoff criteria so that newly hired teachers aren't always the first to lose their jobs.

The advocates in the case, which had been closely watched across the country, hailed the ruling.

"This is a monumental day for California's public education system," said the lead co-counsel Theodore J. Boutros Jr., who also successfully argued the case that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage. "This decision is going to reverberate powerfully across California and across the nation."

Unions, however, denounced the decision in the case known as Vergara vs. California.

"The millionaires behind this case have successfully diverted attention from the real problems of public education," said Fred Glass of the California Federation of Teachers.

Midori Jones, a regional staff member for the California Teachers Association in Monterey County, said the lawsuit had no merit and brought by an organization opposed to the teacher's union.

"We're expecting few changes locally. It basically highlighted problems elsewhere in the state, people here have a lot of confidence in their teachers," Jones said.

The lawsuit was brought by Students Matter, a group funded largely by entrepreneur Dave Welch of Atherton who was ecstatic about the outcome, and disagreed with unions' accusations that the suit was an attack on public schools.

"I believe in public education. It is a key cornerstone and pillar of democracy," said Welch, a father of three who co-founded optical telecommunications system firm Infinera and has been active in school reform.

Treu's ruling agreed with the plaintiffs on all challenges to the current laws:

Granting tenure, essentially permanent employment, to teachers after about 18 months on the job unfairly disadvantages teachers and students, the judge wrote, noting that California is one of only five states granting tenure after two years or less.

Dismissal laws that effectively require from two to 10 years to get rid of a teacher and force districts to spend $50,000 to $450,000 or more to fire grossly ineffective teachers amount to "uber due process" that results in school districts allowing such teachers to continue in the classroom. Treu noted that 1 percent to 3 percent of California's 275,000 active teachers are considered grossly ineffective, or up to 8,250 teachers.

The current layoff rules disproportionately affect poor and minority students, denying them a stable learning process.

Plaintiffs alleged that schools serving poor students have more teachers with less seniority, and therefore are more likely to lose teachers during layoffs, which by California law must be based almost solely on seniority. As a result, those schools suffer from higher turnover and more inexperienced and ineffective teachers.

A student in Los Angeles Unified taught by an instructor in the bottom 5 percent of teachers loses 91/2 months of learning, compared with students taught by average teachers, the court noted.

Anthony Trunzo, the father of children in Oakland and Berkeley public schools, welcomed the ruling. "I'm not a big believer in tenure for anybody," he said. An ineffective teacher should first get help in improving, and if they don't, schools need to act to ensure the right classroom environment for kids.

The lawsuit was based on California's constitutional protections, but drew national attention for its challenge to tenure, a job protection widely granted to teachers and academics and a status necessary, unions say, to prevent capricious firings and discipline.

In a statement, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson wrote that the ruling might make it more difficult to attract talented and dedicated educators. "Teachers are not the problem in our schools, they are the solution," he said.

While the decision is pending appeal, the teacher-protection laws remain on the books. But John Deasy, Los Angeles Unified superintendent and a suit backer, said Tuesday morning, "There's no reason the Legislature and elected leaders shouldn't be sitting down this afternoon" to discuss new laws.

Whatever remedy that Sacramento —where teachers unions hold powerful sway — produces will have to pass muster with Treu, who will retain supervisory authority to make sure new laws don't violate his injunctions, Boutros said.

Reaction was muted among school districts, given their close and sometimes delicate relationships with teacher unions.

"We're cautiously optimistic," said Shelly Viramontez, who oversees personnel in the Campbell Union elementary district. "It is a move in the right direction."

Monterey mother Joanna Greenshields said she supports unions but she would like to see modifications in the K-12 teacher tenure laws.

"We will always need to protect workers because we can never guarantee that employers will be honest and fair," she said. "I think two-year tenure needs to go. I can't think of any profession that has tenure after two years . . . but if you have amazing senior teachers who cost more, you don't want to unfairly remove them so you can save money employing" new teachers.

Plaintiff Julia Macias, who will be a freshman in Los Angeles Unified, said she was glad to be able to speak up for what she believes in. Other plaintiffs included Daniella Martinez of San Jose, Brandon Debose Jr. of Oakland and Kate Elliott of San Carlos. The lead plaintiff, Beatriz Vergara, and others live in Southern California.

Together, they proved that California laws impose "a real and appreciable impact on students' fundamental right to equality of education," Treu ruled, and impose a disproportional burden on poor and minority students.